egodust at DIGITAL.NET
Sat Aug 30 20:40:57 CDT 1997
Allan Curry wrote:
> Egodust writes:
> >>From the vyavaharika (relative) perspective, it seems when attempting
> >the best interpretation of the [real] parabrahman sthiti, the closest
> >one can get to describing it is through satchidananda, which is really
> >stipulated/asserted via the double negative: viz. not non-being, not
> >non-consciousness, not non-bliss. Being yet an attribute, it defies
> >positive assertion, like any other concept. This is extremely subtle
> >and if one catches the drift of this dynamic: ie how virtually *all*
> >concepts (vritti-s) require complete integration into the Whole of
> >the Absolute, the source of sathya must be delivered like a current
> >dissolving the fallacy of the *separative* jiva--which exists nowhere
> >in space-time except as a dream-dance of maya.
> What exactly do you mean "...defies positive assertion, like any other
> concept"? Are you saying that all concepts "defy positive assertion"?
Yes, all concepts that attempt to describe the Absolute (parabrahman),
since all concepts are inherently attributes.
> What "dynamic" are you talking about? What do you mean by saying "concepts
> (vritti-s) require complete integration into the Whole of the Absolute"?
If when concepts are integrated or absorbed into the Absolute, they [as
Radcliff points out below] are no longer isolated or particularized as
'things in themselves,' which otherwise serve to distort the free Substratum
(Self), birthing thereof the names and forms of maya.
> This whole thing reminds me of a statement I recently read in a book called
> "Understanding Zen" by Benjamin Radcliff, which goes... "Maya is the
> universe of conceptual abstractions, the mind's attempt to fit experience
> into a set of fixed categories." In this view, a "tree" is such an
> abstraction, while the "real" thing in-itself is simply inconceivable.
> Abandoning unnecessary and impossible attempts to "model" reality leaves
> the primordial oneness of consciousness/world intact, and that is the true
> self (... I suppose :-)
> If you're wondering what this has to do with Advaita, you may want to
> reconsider Ramana's assertions that "I am" is the Self, while "I am
> so-and-so" is the ego. This is an example of the self-concept being
> mistaken for the self. Might the same mistake occur with every other
> concept? (ie. "tree" mistaken for the inconceivable, etc.) Might Benjamin
> Radcliff be correct in asserting that the projective power of our own
> concepts *is* maya?
Yes, this says it better than I did.
> bye for now,
> "Intellect is not the Self nor apart from the Self." - Ramana Maharshi
"There are no answers
there are no questions."
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list